Race preferential admissions tend to depress the grade, the graduation rates, and advancement to graduate school for those favored in the admissions process. The Supreme Court will soon rule on the legality of such preferences in university admissions. What might this ruling mean for North Carolina?
This past semester several political items were removed, as soon they appeared, from the student union at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. Among them: anti-war flyers labeling President George Bush a “bully,” depicting Lady Liberty impaling a dove by its rectum on a sword, and having the U.S. flag being produced in the exhaust fumes of B-1 bombers; magazines containing a photograph of men engaging in anal sex; a large sign advertising “The Vagina Monologues” that called for all [offensive slang for vaginas] to “Unite!”; and flyers in support of war against Saddam Hussein.
Actually, only the last one was deemed offensive enough for removal from campus. The rest were allowed to stand.
A news article in The Daily Tar Heel April 24 contained a shocking lead: “A woman is raped every two minutes. Almost one in every four women between the ages of 18 and 24 is a survivor of sexual assault.”
No sources for this information are given — which is mildly surprising since it is published in the campus newspaper for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a UNC flagship university with a well-known school of journalism. It is not, however, unusual for any campus discussion of that particular subject.
Beyond the publicity-seeking protests and the condescending “teach-ins,” the effects of the war on terror and the aftermath of Sept. 11 on universities have been subtle but significant. In some respects, universities have been asked to contribute to U.S. security efforts in ways other sectors could not.
Unless you have a gift for the absurd, you would be hard pressed to dream up a campus “Awareness Week” that hasn’t already been soberly promulgated somewhere. Every week on a college campus is an opportunity to commemorate somebody’s pet cause. What are these weeks for? As the name and any promotion will tell you, they are to “promote awareness” of the issue named in the week. Usually that’s it — just the enthymematic “to promote awareness” of the issue.
Dear UNC-Wilmington Students:
For years, my well-known opposition to affirmative action has been a source of great controversy across our campus, particularly among UNCW faculty. Many have assumed that my position on this topic has been a function of personal prejudice or “insensitivity” to the needs of various “disenfranchised” groups on campus and in society in general. In reality, my opposition to affirmative action has been based on personal experience.
My mole at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has uncovered what might be UNC-CH’s book selection for this year’s Summer Reading Program for incoming freshmen. Readers will recall the program created a nationwide stir last year with its selection of Michael Sells’ Approaching the Qur’án, which focused on the 35 most approachable suras in the religious text.
All eyes are on Michigan now, thanks to a case before the Supreme Court involving the University of Michigan Law Schools’ use of racial preferences in admissions decisions. It is a case being watched with extreme interest by N.C. higher-education officials , public and private.
Movements are underway on college campuses nationwide to cause them to “divest” in holdings that support some cause promoters find odious. The campaigns hearken back to those in the 1980s where colleges refused to do business with South Africa because of its policy of apartheid. The most well-known current campaign is the one seeking universities to divest in Israel, but there is another campaign underway to have universities divest in terror.
In late February a federal commission released its final report on recommendations on reforming the enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Entitled “‘Open to All’: Title IX at Thirty,” the Secretary of Education’s Commission on Opportunity in Athletics praises the legislation for expanding athletic opportunities for women but criticizes how enforcement has led to the elimination of opportunities for men.